Celeron 827E vs E-300
Primary details
Comparing E-300 and Celeron 827E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 22 August 2011 (13 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $89 |
Detailed specifications
E-300 and Celeron 827E basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 14 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E-300 and Celeron 827E compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FT1 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-300 and Celeron 827E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SVM | no data |
| FMA | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-300 and Celeron 827E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-300 and Celeron 827E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 17 Watt |
E-300 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron 827E, on the other hand, has a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 5.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between E-300 and Celeron 827E. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-300 and Celeron 827E, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
